CANARA BANK Vs. A.H.BASHEERKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 25.5.2006 of CDRF, Alappuzha in OP No. A -82 of 2005. The complaint was filed by the 1st respondent as complainant against the appellants as 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The lower Forum directed the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 2,00,000 along with 9% interest from 23.5.2001 with cost of Rs.750 to the complainant.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant that the 4th opposite party who is a friend of the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 and in discharge of the said amount a cheque was issued in favour of the complainant. The cheque was presented for collection before the 1st opposite party Bank on 8.5.2001. The six months period of the cheque was to expire on 16.5.2001. The cheque was dishonoured with endorsement œpayment stopped by the drawer, A/c closed on 7.12.2000 . This endorsement was received by the complainant from the collecting bank on 23.5.2001 only. After giving statutory notice complaint was filed against the 4th opposite party before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court Kayamkulam under Section 138 of NI Act and found that the cheque reached the drawee bank after 6 months when it became stale and acquitted the accused. According to the complainant the cheque became time barred only due to the negligence of the collection bank and the 4th opposite party. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties he filed complaint before the Forum.

(3.) THE 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed combined version and contended that they are not aware of the transaction between the complainant and the 4th opposite party and admitted that the cheque was presented and the 1st opposite party on 8.5.2001 and from there it was forwarded to the 2nd opposite party and that the complainant, filed a Criminal case for the recovery of the cheque amount. Moreover the date of cheque was on 16.11.2000 and the complainant presented it at the brim of limitation and there is no deficiency in service on the part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.